Bin Laden Dead

[Allhallowsday]

And now that the biggest game of all has been bagged and tagged, the White House wants us to go on their "word" that Bin Laden is actually dead. 
Personally, I feel they should show them. 
Sure, the hatred coming from the Middle East and Pakistan at this time ( and the amount of controversy arising from his killing) is some proof that it's true, but some visual confirmation would be nice too.   Sometimes word is not enough.

But the feeling is is that doing so would incite more anger and all that stuff, so apparently we'll never get to see it. Seems the White House more interested in keeping Al Qaeda and The Taliban pacified than proving his word to the American people.

"Pacified"?  "Pacified"??     He just authorized the Navy Seals to assassinate Al Qaeda's leader. 
OBAMA stated that he did not want to display "trophies".  Though I'm curious to see such picture too, I agree with our President.  OSAMA BIN LADEN is dead. 

[AndyC]

And now that the biggest game of all has been bagged and tagged, the White House wants us to go on their "word" that Bin Laden is actually dead. 
Personally, I feel they should show them. 
Sure, the hatred coming from the Middle East and Pakistan at this time ( and the amount of controversy arising from his killing) is some proof that it's true, but some visual confirmation would be nice too.   Sometimes word is not enough.

But the feeling is is that doing so would incite more anger and all that stuff, so apparently we'll never get to see it. Seems the White House more interested in keeping Al Qaeda and The Taliban pacified than proving his word to the American people.

"Pacified"?  "Pacified"??     He just authorized the Navy Seals to assassinate Al Qaeda's leader. 
OBAMA stated that he did not want to display "trophies".  Though I'm curious to see such picture too, I agree with our President.  OSAMA BIN LADEN is dead. 

And anybody who doubts it isn't going to be convinced by pictures anyway.

When you think about it, this is not something anyone is going to lie about. If Obama said Bin Laden was dead and it wasn't true, Al Quaeda would know, and so would the rest of us, because Al Jazeera would be getting a video from old fur face with proof to the contrary. If he's not dead (and I have no reason to believe he isn't), he's at least out of circulation. And to me it makes no difference if he's dead or locked up in a very deep hole with no trial or chance of release.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

And now that the biggest game of all has been bagged and tagged, the White House wants us to go on their "word" that Bin Laden is actually dead. 
Personally, I feel they should show them. 
Sure, the hatred coming from the Middle East and Pakistan at this time ( and the amount of controversy arising from his killing) is some proof that it's true, but some visual confirmation would be nice too.   Sometimes word is not enough.

But the feeling is is that doing so would incite more anger and all that stuff, so apparently we'll never get to see it. Seems the White House more interested in keeping Al Qaeda and The Taliban pacified than proving his word to the American people.

"Pacified"?  "Pacified"??     He just authorized the Navy Seals to assassinate Al Qaeda's leader. 
OBAMA stated that he did not want to display "trophies".  Though I'm curious to see such picture too, I agree with our President.  OSAMA BIN LADEN is dead. 

I just read this (as I haven't been on in awhile) but I guess I should explain.

I agree with you and Andy C that Osama is indeed dead and gone (and good riddance) because it's true that this is something no President would lie about, and that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have proved. This is not an issue with me.

What I meant by pacification, was Obama's unwillingness to show the picture, as it might "anger" the extremists or some people back home who disagree with our actions, is sort of wrong.

Al Qaeda videotaped behadings of people in Iraq a few years back,  slit the throat of Daniel Pearl, and have repeatedly done the lowest possible things to other humans that could be imagined.

And I personally feel, regardless of the controversy, that we should celebrate the passing of this low life piece of sh*t regardless of what anyone thinks, by shoving it back in their faces.

The war is going to escalate anyhow now as a result, so what harm will it do? Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Someone will probabaly leak the photo in time, anyway.

[Jim H]

So..  You're saying the US government should act like Al-Qaeda even when there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

[AndyC]

I think they've sent a perfect message by handling the deliberate killing of a hated enemy in a tasteful and respectful manner, with a proper Muslim funeral and some discretion with regard to photos and grisly details. I think it's right precisely because Al Quaeda have demonstrated repeatedly that they would not do the same in that situation. America, on the other hand, will not deny even Osama Bin Laden some dignity in death. It clearly demonstrates the difference between one side and the other.

[Allhallowsday]

I think they've sent a perfect message by handling the deliberate killing of a hated enemy in a tasteful and respectful manner, with a proper Muslim funeral and some discretion with regard to photos and grisly details. I think it's right precisely because Al Quaeda have demonstrated repeatedly that they would not do the same in that situation. America, on the other had, will not deny even Osama Bin Laden some dignity in death. It clearly demonstrates the difference between one side and the other.

Thoughtful remarks, well stated. 

[lester1/2jr]

I'm a law of the jungle kind of guy as you all well know by now. The guy perpetuated what will probably go down as the greatest/ most horrible spectacle in modern history. That the country who was attacked would hunt him down and kill him ...if you are shocked or suprised by that you are pretty naive.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

So..  You're saying the US government should act like Al-Qaeda even when there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

Appreciate your reply, but the fact is is that you don't win a street fight by hitting above the belt.  I guess maybe we'll throw milk and cookies at them the next time and see what that gets us....

[Jim H]

So..  You're saying the US government should act like Al-Qaeda even when there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

Appreciate your reply, but the fact is is that you don't win a street fight by hitting above the belt.  I guess maybe we'll throw milk and cookies at them the next time and see what that gets us....

You agreed it would anger extremists and implied it might escalate the war (by saying it is going to escalate regardless) and you offered no actual logical reason to release the photo.  So...  I guess this is the stage where I stop talking.

[Allhallowsday]

So..  You're saying the US government should act like Al-Qaeda even when there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

Appreciate your reply, but the fact is is that you don't win a street fight by hitting above the belt.  I guess maybe we'll throw milk and cookies at them the next time and see what that gets us....

What are you talking about?  We hit Al Qaeda HARD and a clear message has been sent.  You are just too partisan.  At our President's order, our NAVY SEALS killed the fiend.  The photos weren't to be released because the USA doesn't need to display trophies.  Milk and cookies?  That's just a prejudiced, officious, unwarranted remark.  Silly in fact.  'Kay, you don't like OBAMA.   

[AndyC]

So..  You're saying the US government should act like Al-Qaeda even when there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

Appreciate your reply, but the fact is is that you don't win a street fight by hitting above the belt.  I guess maybe we'll throw milk and cookies at them the next time and see what that gets us....

You certainly don't win a street fight by pointless grandstanding.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

What are you talking about?  We hit Al Qaeda HARD and a clear message has been sent.  You are just too partisan.  At our President's order, our NAVY SEALS killed the fiend.  The photos weren't to be released because the USA doesn't need to display trophies.  Milk and cookies?  That's just a prejudiced, officious, unwarranted remark.  Silly in fact.  'Kay, you don't like OBAMA.   

Hmm..I can understand "unwarranted" and "officious", but how in the heck is
"milk and cookies"  a prejudiced statement? 

Second, I'm not falling for your assumptions that my disagreement with Obama's policies (or anyone else's disagreements with them) is hatred in any way shape or form.  That was never the case, regardless of the monotone ramblings of Keith Olberman or any other Media pundit who made up this BS.

You pulled it on Indy and I before, but this is where it stops.

Now, as to the photo issue, I'll address you and Jim H here:

You agreed it would anger extremists and implied it might escalate the war (by saying it is going to escalate regardless) and you offered no actual logical reason to release the photo.  So...  I guess this is the stage where I stop talking.

Yes I DID say the war would escalate now that the Al Qaeda's Top Turban is history. So would it really matter if Al Qaeda is angered at this point?  No. So show us the money. What does it matter at this point? Show the photo.

Oh but this will undoubtedly get labelled as shameful celebration and gloating by some (if not all) and to that, I say this:

I have no doubt that some of the lawmakers themselves have lived it up behind closed doors and walked around with hard-ons and attitudes in their  own private time in and away from The Hill after getting Bin Laden.  And if anyone says they haven't, then beachfront property in Arizona is up for sale at 3.9 % fixed for the life of the loan...

[Allhallowsday]

What are you talking about?  We hit Al Qaeda HARD and a clear message has been sent.  You are just too partisan.  At our President's order, our NAVY SEALS killed the fiend.  The photos weren't to be released because the USA doesn't need to display trophies.  Milk and cookies?  That's just a prejudiced, officious, unwarranted remark.  Silly in fact.  'Kay, you don't like OBAMA.  

Hmm..I can understand "unwarranted" and "officious", but how in the heck is
"milk and cookies"  a prejudiced statement?  

Prejudiced against our Democrat President, because he is a Democrat.  Uhm... "prejudiced" does not necessarily mean "racist".    

Second, I'm not falling for your assumptions that my disagreement with Obama's policies (or anyone else's disagreements with them) is hatred in any way shape or form.  That was never the case, regardless of the monotone ramblings of Keith Olberman or any other Media pundit who made up this BS.
You pulled it on Indy and I before, but this is where it stops...

First, you don't "like" OBAMA (and the word "hate" was never used).

Second, I never "pulled" anything on you and dragging Indiana into your need to argue is also unwarranted.  Indianasmith is my friend whom I often disagree with, and sometimes debate with - always respectfully.  You don't need to invoke anyone else to explain or excuse your behavior.  It speaks for itself.  Don't hide behind someone else. I don't need to.  I'll defend somebody, but I won't hide behind anyone.  

Third, what needs to stop is your assumptions, failure to construe true meaning in my postings (and I'll go there) or anyone else's that you disagree with, and constant politicizing of threads that are NOT political.  

Fourth, I had made the effort to make peace with you and also offered friendship.  Friends can disagree, but friends do not drag up old crap that you imagine happened (and in the process remind me of being hideously insulted repeatedly by you).  I do think I wrote way back when that you were a "dimwit" so I'll own insulting you back.  That is "insulting you back" as in repaying in kind.  So, it's water over the dam; don't bring it up.  
And I will not argue with you further, but, dude, know who you are and own it.  

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

First, you don't "like" OBAMA (and the word "hate" was never used).

Dosen't mean that I don't have the right to question you or your context of the wording.  I have a right to know, as you or anyone do, the right to question the context of another's semantics when lodging an accusation or assessing the context of a word lodged in accusation of a certain behavior.

I could say the same for you when you drew your own line between "ascended" and "risen" when you needed to invalidate and contradict Indy's definition of the phrase  "Risen Jesus" in the Easter thread awhile back, because you differed with him as per your stark religious differences.

You questioned his context, and therefore,  it is my right to question you on your context when you address me. As you also have the right to agree or not.

Second, I never "pulled" anything on you and dragging Indiana into your need to argue is also unwarranted.  Indianasmith is my friend whom I often disagree with, and sometimes debate with - always respectfully.  You don't need to invoke anyone else to explain or excuse your behavior.  It speaks for itself.  Don't hide behind someone else. I don't need to.  I'll defend somebody, but I won't hide behind anyone.

I'm not hiding behind anyone. You have done it to both Indy and I before.
You have openly laughed and criticized both of us in past threads.

And then, you use the fact that you and Indy are "long time friends" to excuse his criticisms,  while you throw me under the bus because I'm the newbie that talks circles around you in my own right.

So you are indeed making a fool out of and using Indy by taking his friendship for granted when it comes to either accepting or deflecting criticism. 

Third, what needs to stop is your assumptions, failure to construe true meaning in my postings (and I'll go there) or anyone else's that you disagree with, and constant politicizing of threads that are NOT political.

Back at ya', bud. Try reading my stuff and making an effort to understand before you relegate it to "over-rationalization."  As well as realizing that right or wrong I have a right to opine just as much as anyone else regardless of it's interpretation.

Fourth, I had made the effort to make peace with you and also offered friendship.  Friends can disagree, but friends do not drag up old crap that you imagine happened (and in the process remind me of being hideously insulted repeatedly by you).

I HAVE lived by the peace accord. I'm not trying to insult you now, and I have not called you any names. And I thank you for doing the same. But I have rights too.

I am simply asking questions I am perfectly entitled to ask, and questioning certain behaviors as well. I am also perfectly entitled to know where my fellow boardmembers stand on the issues as well, morally, politically or otherwise.

I'm sorry if my deeper nature offends you. If digging deeper helps me to get true feelings of a person, so be it. Sometimes, assumptions get people to relay their true feelings, as they open up and defend their TRUE positions in a way others can truly feel and appreciate. And right or wrong, honesty deserves respect.  There's no black and white roadmap to getting the true feelings of an individual, sometimes it calls for alternate measures.

I do think I wrote way back when that you were a "dimwit" so I'll own insulting you back.  That is "insulting you back" as in repaying in kind.  So, it's water over the dam; don't bring it up.

Hasn't been brought up at all, save for your mention of it here.  It's all good.

And I will not argue with you further, but, dude, know who you are and own it. 

As I ask you to do the same.  Peace out. 

[Allhallowsday]

...And then, you use the fact that you and Indy are "long time friends" to excuse his criticisms,  while you throw me under the bus because I'm the newbie that talks circles around you in my own right....

...snicker... 
I can't breathe... it's smoky in here... =cough= =cough=  Whatzit...?  Whozat?  Oh!  It's a mirror!